On August 4, 2026, Abdul El-Sayed won the democratic primary in Michigan for the Senate despite $32 million of AIPAC contributions against him. With this success, he challenged the notion that money dictates election outcomes and overcame the targeted messaging from the United Democracy Project- the Super PAC that funded the campaign against him. El-Sayed marks a hopeful reemergence of grassroots politics- his race ran mostly on the work of local campaign groups and volunteers. His victory shows that organized voters can push back and large corporate funds aren’t necessary to fund a campaign. The Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, reversed his earlier rejection of AIPAC funding– motivated by appealing to voters– and stated that he is open to any funding during a debate. Soon after, AIPAC is expected to donate $9 million as a last-minute boost to his campaign. As the general election approaches on November 3, voters will decide the battle between grassroots campaigning and corporate funding.

PACs hold power in U.S. elections by financially backing candidates that will support pro-Israel foreign aid and policy, often spending big money to oppose candidates who are anti-Israel. AIPAC is a lobbying group, and its influence, alongside other wealthy corporate PACs, erodes democratic accountability by allowing wealthier interests to influence electoral races beyond their direct relationship with voters.  Super PACs can accept unlimited non-foreign funds and have unlimited spending on campaigns. The financial discrepancy that organizations like the American Petroleum Institute or AIPAC pour into candidates attempts to control the narrative in political races; opposing political powers lack the financial backing that AIPAC has to use. Przeworski et al. acknowledge that for a candidate to even gain notice and have a chance in a race, they need funds, which often come from special interest groups, and these funds are exchanged for a favor, often when they are in office. This spending is meant to sway voters one way or another, threatening voter autonomy.

Arguably, this is just how elections and the political process function in America and have for decades. Wealthy special interest groups and super PACs represent the beliefs of a voter demographic, and their financial backing and messaging inform voters of what aligns best with their interests and help them decide their vote. Campaigns are also expensive and require funding from groups across the spectrum. Interest groups aren’t responsible for voter fraud; they don’t have any control of the polls, and they merely exist to fund campaigns. Independent spending for candidates is legal and free speech, and voters can discount it, as El-Sayed’s win demonstrates. Their endorsements and funding are legal, and in the specific case of AIPAC, there are other interest groups that have PACs that fundraise for El-Sayed, like ActBlue.

The issue isn’t the existence of money in campaigns, but whether one interest group can concentrate it so heavily that it’s unable to be opposed and the narrative is lost. Groups like AIPAC have been proven to intentionally be misleading through the use of shell PACs in the past. Political discourse is skewed through the imbalance of wealth that institutions can hold. The issues that a wide variety of voters may care about and the stances that a candidate takes can be drowned out by special interest groups’ funding. O’Donnell requires vertical accountability to function through a network of relatively autonomous powers that will call into question and eventually punish an official. These autonomous powers stem from institutions. If this network of autonomy is overcharged by one special interest group, citizens become uninformed voters. Linz and Stepan also advocate for voter autonomy, which corporate PACs seek to disrupt in order to be successful. Elections cannot guarantee meaningful accountability if wealthy interest groups can heavily influence electoral competition and discussions. The United Democracy Project’s funds were used to send mailers to Michigan voters against El-Sayed, alongside running ads against him.

The legality of the Michigan Super PAC isn’t in question, but its impact on voter autonomy and an elected official’s responsibility is. AIPAC gives money to political interests to promote U.S. foreign aid to Israel- effectively a quid pro quo of giving a decent amount of money to cash in on an even larger sum to go towards their purpose. Their way of achieving this is through voter manipulation. Over 50% of voters in Michigan have negative connotations towards AIPAC, also questioning how voters feel about interference in elections and their alliance with interest groups.

Grassroots campaigns build power through organizing large groups of people as leverage for their demands, and are opposed by big money from their opposition. El-Sayed’s campaign benefited from anti-establishment sentiment and voters’ reaction to the scale of outside spending. A third of El-Sayed’s funding came from donors who gave less than $200, but made up $11.3 million of his funds. Citizens can respond to perceived political inequality by mobilizing around a candidate who challenges the established system. Campaigns can become vehicles through which voters communicate dissatisfaction and impose electoral costs on political elites. But El-Sayed also relied on outside funding and spending from independent groups, proving that society isn’t enough to combat the impact of wealthy interest groups.

El-Sayed’s grassroots campaign and primary victory set a precedent that AIPAC funding against him may not have done as much as they hoped. An autonomous civil society in which voters can make decisions based on their self-interest and influence electoral outcomes without being overwhelmed by concentrated private money is crucial for vertical accountability. Wealthy special interest groups can seek to disrupt this by controlling the narrative. El-Sayed has shown that voters and civil society can challenge established political influence and corporate money.